Looking for facts in a sea of weird, misleading, confusing and downright false information? Ask here! I am an ex-Scientologist so I will be able to provide actual facts. I will give you straight information, not church PR.

Because of various problems with Blogger, I've copied everything as of November 26, 2012 over to WordPress. The new location is Ask the Scientologist. I am not deleting this blog and will still accept comments and answer questions here too, but any new articles will appear at the WordPress location. I apologize if this causes any problems.

Sunday, January 1, 2012

Happy New Year 2012

It has been a considerable time since I posted any significant article. It isn't that nothing was going on, obviously, but it was, instead, a combination of too much going on for me personally (good things) and things going incredibly well in exposing the crimes, lies, abuse and fraud of the Church of Scientology.

All I could say was "Well done!"

But, here it is, a new year and I had in mind doing a pretty ordinary look back and then make predictions. It's fun to do.

But there is a new and significant event that just happened which changed my plans for what would probably have been a predictable and boring article.

This is significant. While it is true that Scientologists "in good standing" have been talking with each other about some of the problems and it is true that prominent Scientologists have spoken out after leaving the church, there has never been a prominent Scientologist speaking out while still, technically, "in good standing".

This email went to a lot of well connected Scientologists who have no reason to doubt that Debbie Cook is still in good standing.

Let's take a look at what Debbie says. She is not attacking Scientology or Hubbard in any way. She uses the line "The truth is that as a Scientologist you are more able, more perceptive and have a higher integrity" to appeal to the Scientology ego. While she names David Miscavige, she doesn't personally attack him (i.e. call him "suppressive"). She quotes Hubbard appropriately to make her points. While lengthy, her email does not get bogged down in too much detail as so many other "doubt formulas" have. She has done a good job talking to Scientologists in their terms.

I believe this will be effective. I'm guessing that speaking freely about everything Debbie has brought up will become common within Scientology. That is all to the good.

I read a concerned comment by someone to the effect that we don't want Scientologists to rebel and reform Scientology as Debbie urges. We want, the commenter insists, the church to continue to abuse and defraud Scientologists in order to speed up its collapse.

I'd say that this email will greatly speed up the church's collapse. First, Debbie urges all Scientologists to stop sending any money to the church except for donations for services -- which monies remain (mostly) local. This cuts off Miscavige's lucrative income from all his bogus fundraising tricks.

But wait! By pointing out all the "out-tech" now being enforced by the church, she is discouraging Scientologists from actually taking services.

And, finally, by detailing the total destruction of the upper management of the church, Debbie is making it perfectly "legal" to ignore the dictates coming from "management".

UPDATE: I see some speculation as to why Debbie emphasized that she hasn't spoken to the media and then says "Please keep this email among us, the Scientologists. The media have no place in this" when she must know it would be quickly spread everywhere.

I assume this has to do with her gag agreement with the Church of Scientology when she left the Sea Org. She is, undoubtedly, forbidden from talking to the media. By saying what she says, she is abiding by the agreement. If others ignore her request and spread it about, it's not her fault.

If this doesn't cause a majority of the remaining churchies to disassociate from the Church of Scientology, I'll be very surprised.

They may remain True Believers, and they may then be captured by the Independent Movement, but that group is not organized and is not effective.

And remember this: True Believers must use Scientology and only Scientology for all their endeavors. They must use the Admin and Ethics "tech". The built-in flaws in all of that ensure that any future Scientology organization will not succeed.

To the point, once again. Ah, to see it's demise is a beautiful thing. All those years wasted down a tarnished brick road:( Hail to you for your intelligence in communication. You helped me GREATLY in getting out and I use your link to help others see the light. Write "Right" on Bill!

Technically, this isn't going to happen. You see, Scientologists outside of the church can't agree on what really is "pure Source". When did LRH's tech/policy start getting corrupted? What was corrupted? When LRH stole from others (for instance, Mayo), is that corruption? Since "the tech" has never produced the magnificent results promised, how can you determine which parts are the "100% workable" parts?

Without the church dictating "This is Standard Tech", there is no agreement. Without agreement, there can be no "reform" back to "pure" Scientology.

And, if by "reform" you mean "get rid of the lies, abuse and fraud", well that's forbidden explicitly by LRH. Nothing he wrote can be ignored, altered or dropped out.

I believe it was only the suppressive organisation exerting an enormous amount of control that gave Scientology the remote semblance of workability. With it gone, the cult will collapse.

If, and only if, the tech is workable, will he be successful establishing an independent movement in the long run.That's why I have no problem supporting Marty in his endeavour of getting as many people out of the church as possible, even if they initially land in his fold, unlike many other anons.I'm ready to give Marty his chance to prove the Tech works as long as he refrains from doing the abuse practices as done in the current organisation.

Note that this figure was only the assets held by the IAS (International Association of Scientologists) and is supposed to be used for 1) defending Scientology, 2) destroying psychiatrists and 3) promoting Scientology's "expansion". And note that it is being hoarded and not much used.

While I can't confirm the accuracy of "$1 billion", I'd say that's a likely number.

But the Church of Scientology has a lot more money than that, a lot -- and it is all under the sole control of David Miscavige. When it becomes obvious that Miscavige will be arrested for all his crimes, I expect him to scuttle off to a safe location and continue to live the billionaire's lifestyle he has become accustomed to.

Re: The built-in flaws that ensure that any future Scientology organization will not succeed.

Hubbard was obviously a clever man, so why did he have built-in flaws in the Scientology organization? Was it a mistake on his part or did he do it deliberately to distract people from noticing that they were not getting the promised results?

And BTW if anyone reading here thinks they have OT powers, please contact James Randi and pick up your $1,000,000 dollars.

Well, Hubbard obviously thought he was a clever man. He was ignorant of how to actually run a business. He had never run his own business, just like Miscavige. His policies often seem logical and workable but there was no knowledge or experience behind them.

Hubbard ran the Scientology organizations by accepting and approving what worked, not what was "on policy". Hubbard, himself, never followed his own policies and, as long as they were successful, didn't demand his executives to do so either.

That's the real reason behind any successes that occurred when he was running things. If you were making money, Hubbard never asked if you were following his policies.

The horrible flaws in Hubbard's policies are quite accidental, not intentional. He was quite ignorant.

Without Hubbard to tacitly allow success to override his policies, all Scientology organizations are doomed.

I beg to differ JB but IMO L. Ron Hubbard was unquestionably a clever man who definitely knew how to run a business!

The fact is he left behind a vast corporate empire, including millions of dollars worth of copyrights and trademarks, as well as a personal fortune rumoured to be worth hundreds of millions. How many people achieve that level of financial success?

You could be right but the evidence doesn't support you. His business policies are quite unworkable and, when actually and religiously applied, cause the inevitable destruction of an organization.

But Hubbard was clever, I'll give you that. His organizational skill was in picking and supporting the correct people who could run an organization -- despite Hubbard's policies. I've seen it in action. He accrued a large fortune because of that and because he accumulated devout followers who bought everything he sold.

Destructive cults are always authoritarian in their power structure and the leader must always be regarded as the supreme authority. To keep up this façade, cult members are cleverly hoodwinked and manipulated.

So my point is suppose Hubbard deliberately created those unworkable business policies to keep his followers down and dependent on him and Scientology $ervices.

Hampered by his unworkable policies Scientologists would never be as good or able as their leader. This way Hubbard could stay on his self-created pedestal and go on manipulating them, appearing omnipotent with special knowledge and skills, demanding unquestioning obedience with power, privilege, excessive discipline and expectations, all the while pointing out to his “handicapped” followers what inept fools they were.

They, not being as competent as their leader, would of course agree. As Shakespeare said, “Though this be madness, yet there is method in't.”

This is a standard mind-control tactic used by cult leaders, pimps, and the like.

Dictators and cult leaders are self-centred and paranoid and will do anything to hold onto power. This goes for King Herod of Judea to Kim Jong Il of North Korea and for Charles Manson to Jim Jones . . . they don't care about anyone but themselves.

Never ascribe to conspiracy what can be explained to stupidity. Hubbard didn't create a sick system to make himself look clever by comparison--he created a sick system because he was too incompetent to create a workable one.

Then reality set in. Many of the faithful aren't reading it. The Church has warned them. Here is an excerpt of one such warning (I translated some jargon so it would be understandable):

"Dear all,

There's been some entheta (lies) flying around lately and I just wanted to give you some words from LRH on that kind of thing.

By the way, to those of you who sent me a copy, thanks, that's the right thing to do...when you see some entheta (communication based on lies) about Scientology send it to the correct Church terminal.

The (Church) campaigns are exploding like never before and for those of us more closely involved in them, we know with no hesitation that this is our time and both the campaigns and Scientology are getting acceptance like crazy."

The Church email goes on to give some LRH references about the relationship between natter and overts (harmful acts) thus proving that since Debbie is nattering she is essentially broadcasting to one and all that she has committed harmful acts. And so Debbie's email isn't really about the horrible things she has seen or experienced, it is about her and her crimes. Get it!

And another reference in the Church email says essentially that if you have a problem with the Church, tell the correct people about it and then all will be well.

To summarize: anything negative said about the Church to anyone outside the Church is based on lies because if you were a good person, you would have just written a report and kept it all in the family. So shame on you for telling. You do this because of your hidden crimes..

Comments will be moderated. Have patience, I get around to it pretty quick. As a rule of thumb, I won't approve spam, off-topic, trolling or abusive stuff. The rest is usually OK. Yes, you can disagree with me.

Search Ask the Scientologist

Frequency of articles

I know a number of people want me to write more frequently and I consider that a great compliment.

I would, but I refuse to write just for the sake of writing. I want to have something to say that is worthwhile. I've written a lot and, too often, when I'm researching something I want to say, I find I've already said it, sometimes several times.

When I started this blog, there was a lot of confusion and bad information which I intended to help clear up. I think I did that. Now there are many very fine blogs and other sources of factual information and excellent opinions. Often, when I'm researching something, I find that others have already covered it quite well.